Hello there! This is for members.

Not a member yet?

Join the global liberty community today.

Now FREE To Join

Get the Good Stuff

We'll send you articles, events and the best of Liberty.me.

Sign Up for the Good Stuff

Get our best articles + our exclusive guideReclaim Your
Privacy

Share

Description

The Fox News Republican Presidential debate was an exciting, raucous event, featuring 10 candidates who polled high enough to be included. A second tier debate, held earlier in the evening, featured 7 other candidates vying for the top spot in the Republican primary. So who won?

Today’s Freedom Report podcast does a full breakdown of the greatest moments of the second debate, with a nod of deference to the winner of the second tier event, Carly Fiorina. Although Fiorina failed to make the cut for the main event, her cool, even performance distinguished herself enough for many pundits and politicos to take notice. Will she make it into the big event next time? We’ll look at her chances in today’s show.

And what about the main event? Donald Trump stood alone in claiming that he wouldn’t rule out a third party run. Senator Rand Paul immediately took him to task, arguing that he’s already half in the bag for the Clintons. Trump and Paul sparred, with the two candidates verbally shuffling and jabbing one another and no clear winner. Trump landed the final blow when he poked Paul over his donating money to the senator.

Former Ohio Governor John Kasich gave a beautiful answer to the question over whether he’d support gay marriage. Kasich responded that he would always give his family unconditional love no matter what, despite his support of the conservative definition of marriage.

Dr. Ben Carson elevated the IQ on the debate stage, and although he only had a small amount of time, the retired neurosurgeon certainly made a good impression with his final closing statements. We play his remarks on today’s show.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Senator Paul sparred over national security, in what was clearly the most pivotal moment of the entire debate. Christie pulled the “9/11” card, while Paul argued that we should always obey the 4th amendment and the Bill of Rights. Christie claimed that while he was convicting terrorists, Paul was blowing hot air in a subcommittee, to which Paul responded that he didn’t trust Obama with his personal records and stabbed Christie by saying “I know you gave him a hug.”

Subscribe

Meet the hosts

Austin Petersen is the chief executive officer of Stonegait LLC, a for-profit consulting firm specializing in photo and video services. Stonegait also provides social media advice, political campaign expertise and grassroots organizing strategies to candidates for office or to brands looking for more exposure.
Petersen is the editor in chief of The Libertarian Republic news magazine, one of the most read political news sites in the United States. He also hosts The Freedom Report podcast, which has 30,000 daily listeners.
Petersen is the former Director of Production at FreedomWorks and was an Associate Producer for Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show, “Freedom Watch” on the Fox Business Network. Petersen built Judge Napolitano’s social networks boasting over 600,000 fans and millions of clicks a month.
His work has appeared in Getty, Reuters, the LA Times, NBC and Time Magazine. He is also a frequent contributor on television appearing on Russia Today and on dozens of local radio shows.
Austin grew up on a farm in the Midwest in a town called Peculiar, Missouri. Graduating from Missouri State University with a degree in the Fine Arts, Petersen moved to New York City after graduation to a pursue a career in media.

discussions

Hey Everyone, I’m new to Liberty.me but not to the Liberty Movement. I was paying attention to it in 2008 and finally drank the kool-aid in 2012. I’m posting here because I’ve been bootstrapping the development of a legislation alert app and I am hoping that it helps grassroots movements in shutting down bad legislation and getting good candidates elected. The basic idea is to connect our nation’s outspoken political activists (10% of the population roughly) with the remaining interested bystanders (about 49% of the population, representing people who care but prefer to remain anonymous) so that their combined leverage can shut down bad legislation or help get good legislation passed. Opinion data on pending bills is filterable by district and can be used to hold representatives accountable to the will of their constituency. Come election time, users can also easily compare their private voting history with a representative’s public voting record in order to make a much more informed vote than normal. There are two types of accounts: Mobilizers: These are public accounts that can be followed by other users and can post alerts on pending State and Federal legislation. This account type logs in via web browser and requires an invite code currently. Apptivists: These are private accounts that follow public accounts and vote on the bills they are alerted to by the Mobilizers. This account type logs in via a simple phone app and is open to anyone with an iOS device (Android coming soon!). Much more detailed info on the project can be found by scrolling down the homepage of our website: http://www.apptivism.us We’ve recently launched our MVP of the application and I’ve set up an invite code that can be used by people from Liberty.me if anyone here would like to register as a Public Mobilizer account. As this is my attempt to help promote liberty in our country, we have decided to make Apptivism free to use for both account types. Also, this app is meant to work together with other social media services like FB and Twitter. It’s not a replacement. That’s what Liberty.me is for. 😉 If anyone here has any questions, I’d love to answer them and I’d love to get feedback on the whether this type of system is something that could be useful to the liberty community. Thanks in advance! Cheers! seth PS: Here’s a brief video explaining the system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah4bJG5NNks

Over the past five months or so, I admit I’ve been intrigued—indeed, perhaps obsessed—with the American elections. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by the Trump phenomenon and by the stunning hordes of people that either support him and hate him. The time I’ve spent learning about American Democracy has made me realize that my previous opposition to statism as a whole, as well as my rejection of voting on principle, was founded on abstract and philosophical discussion alone. I had an utter lack of experience and interest in politics. Throughout my whole life, the political process has seemed hopelessly corrupt and out of reach. It was easy for me to conclude that voting was hopelessly pointless and probably immoral. Today my views have changed, not much, but enough that I feel compelled to talk about my thoughts and not just keep them to myself. This is an exploration of a self-defense case for voting that is consistent with Voluntaryist principles, as well as a discussion on the potential merits of voting for Donald Trump to advance the cause of liberty. Before I make that case however, let me lay down two essential facts that have propelled me to this point. https://alexis.bastiatinstitute.org/the-voluntaryst-self-defense-case-for-voting-trump/

Not too long ago I decided to ask a Scottish Socialist an economic question about the socialist system he advocates on his YouTube channel: “Due to the preclusion of exchange for goods of higher order, what is the basis for state officials directing the alternative applications of the factors of production towards thousands of different and changing consumer needs and wants of different urgencies in the least-cost manner for society at large?” The answer to my own question was basically going to be that state officials cannot have a basis for directing the factors of production due to the absence of the price mechanism, but as you can see in the comments section he didn’t really answer my question. As you can see above, he has now responded to my question with a new video, but after listening to it I cannot compile a sufficient answer to reply with in order to get him to understand where he is mistaken. http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=yN5_YWv–WA Can you tell me what point he is still missing?